Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/25 has been entered.
Claims 1-9 and 14-22 are pending.
Claims 10-13 and 23-27 were previously canceled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited references fail to anticipate or render the claimed subject matter (combined with other limitations claimed in the claimed subject matter) obvious over any of the prior art of record, either alone or in combination. Therefore, when taken as a whole application, and incorporating all the respective limitations, none of the prior art discloses the features as claimed. For instance, Lee discloses ACK/NACK feedback, including differing power levels. However, Lee does not specifically disclose the load determinations and joint/separate acknowledgement mode determinations as recited in claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the independent claims, Applicant argues the references do not disclose “wherein the wireless device is configured to operate in the joint acknowledgement mode any time the wireless device is expected to provide acknowledgement feedback for both the received unicast transmission and the received multicast transmission” [Remarks pg. 9]. Examiner respectively disagrees. Lee discloses the limitations when the UE jointly acknowledges the unicast and multicast data [fig. 14-17]. Consequently, the claims are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 14 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20190132104 A1, cited by Applicant of Record) in view of Golitschek (EP 2720401 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Lee discloses a method of conveying acknowledgement feedback to a network node for unicast and multicast transmissions received by a wireless device [Abstract, fig. 14], the method executed by the wireless device and comprising:
configuring uplink control channel resources, where each possible ACK or NAK combination for the unicast and multicast transmissions maps to a different cyclic shift of a base sequence defined according to the uplink control channel format (The UL format is indicated to the UE via a broadcasted signal [par. 0113], as well as scheduling info [par. 0165, 177], and where the 2-bit ACK/NACK symbol is modulated using QPSK and spread with a different cyclic shift [tbl. 1, fig. 7, par. 0116-119]);
receiving a unicast transmission and a multicast transmission [fig. 14 S1410];
when in a joint acknowledgement mode [fig. 14]:
configuring acknowledgement feedback for the received unicast and multicast transmissions according to the cyclic shift mapping [fig. 15-17 S1520-S1720]; and
jointly transmitting the acknowledgement feedback for both the received unicast transmission and the received multicast transmission to the network node in an acknowledgement time slot, wherein the wireless device is configured to operate in the joint acknowledgement mode any time the wireless device is expected to provide acknowledgement feedback for both the received unicast transmission and the received multicast transmission [fig. 14 S1420, fig. 15-17 S1530-1730].
Although Lee discloses transmitting indications to the UE, as discussed above, Lee does not explicitly disclose responsive to an uplink channel format indicated by an uplink channel format indicator. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Golitschek.
In the same field of endeavor, Golitschek discloses:
responsive to an uplink channel format indicated by an uplink channel format indicator [par. 0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with Golitschek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of reducing the UE’s processing load [Golitschek par. 0036].
Regarding claim 14, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Lee further discloses a wireless device [fig. 18 no. 1100, fig. 1 no. 10] in communication with a network node [fig. 1 no. 20] in a wireless network [fig. 1], the wireless device comprising: a receiver [fig. 18 no. 1130] configured to simultaneously receive a unicast transmission and a multicast transmission [par. 0010] from the network node [fig. 1 no. 20]; one or more processing circuits [fig. 18 no. 1110].
Regarding claim 15, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is from the perspective of the BS/Network Node, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Lee and Golitschek disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lee further discloses:
wherein the base sequence comprises a Constant Amplitude Zero Autocorrelation (CAZAC) sequence, and wherein each of the possible combinations of ACK or NAK for the unicast and multicast transmissions maps to a different cyclic shift of the CAZAC sequence [par. 0135].
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Lee and Golitschek disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lee further discloses wherein each of the possible combinations of ACK or NAK for the unicast and multicast transmissions maps to the different cyclic shift of the CAZAC sequence by:
mapping an ACK for both the received unicast transmission and the received multicast transmission to a cyclic shift of 0 of the CAZAC sequence;
mapping a NAK for the received unicast transmission and an ACK for the received multicast transmission to a cyclic shift of 3 of the CAZAC sequence;
mapping an ACK for the received unicast transmission and a NAK for the received multicast transmission to a cyclic shift of 6 of the CAZAC sequence; and
mapping a NAK for both the received unicast transmission and the received multicast transmission to a cyclic shift of 9 of the CAZAC sequence [fig. 7-9, where one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to map the 4 possible combinations to available data slots corresponding to particular cyclic shift values].
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Lee and Golitschek disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lee further discloses:
wherein the base sequence comprises two bits, and wherein each of the possible combinations of ACK or NAK for the unicast and multicast transmissions maps to a different cyclic shift of the two bits [par. 0116-119, fig. 7].
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Lee and Golitschek disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lee further discloses wherein each of the possible combinations of ACK or NAK for the unicast and multicast transmissions maps to the different cyclic shift of the two bits by:
mapping an ACK for both the received unicast transmission and the received multicast transmission to 00;
mapping a NAK for the received unicast transmission and an ACK for the received multicast transmission to 01;
mapping an ACK for the received unicast transmission and a NAK for the received multicast transmission to 10; and
mapping a NAK for both the received unicast transmission and the received multicast transmission to 11 [fig. 7-9, where mapping 4 possible combinations to 2-bits is well known in the art].
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Lee and Golitschek disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lee further discloses:
further comprising boosting a power for the uplink control channel for the joint acknowledgement mode during the transmission of the acknowledgement feedback [par. 0261, fig. 16 S1620-30].
Regarding claim 7, Lee and Golitschek disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lee further discloses:
further comprising receiving power control information from the network node [par. 0190], wherein the boosting the power comprises boosting the power for the joint acknowledgement mode during transmission of the acknowledgement feedback responsive to the received power control information [par. 0165, 190].
Regarding claim 8, Lee and Golitschek disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lee further discloses further comprising:
determining whether the operating mode of the wireless device is the joint acknowledgement mode or a separate acknowledgement mode [fig. 7-8, fig. 9];
wherein when in the separate acknowledgement mode [fig. 17], the method further comprises:
configuring acknowledgement feedback for each of the received unicast and multicast transmissions according to the base sequence [fig. 17 S1720, par. 0194];
transmitting the acknowledgement feedback for the received unicast transmission in a first acknowledgement time slot [fig. 17 S1730, par. 0194]; and
transmitting the acknowledgement feedback for the received multicast transmission in a second acknowledgement time slot different from the first acknowledgement time slot [fig. 17 S1730, par. 0194].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465